Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
John M
climber
|
|
I believe he is referring to the wealthiest of the wealthy receiving corporate giveaways. the majority of the wealthiest are white. Walmart comes to mind and the walton family.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
Walmart comes to mind and the walton family.
Please elaborate.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
Just to help you understand the latest CNN/ORC poll:
Clinton leads Trump by 13 points, while Sanders leads Trump by 16 points. But Clinton's 13 point lead is apt to vanish by Election Day, while Sanders' 3 point lead over Clinton vs Trump is sacrosanct, and a good reason to overturn the results of the Democratic nominating process.
You can trust me on this one because I've studied Information Science. :-)
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
Please sustain.
Corporate welfare. Farm subsidies. Please refute.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Corporate welfare. Farm subsidies. Please refute.
To begin, please list what you allege to be "corporate welfare," then substantiate its racial distribution.
Please do the same with "farm subsidies."
I note that Republicans have generally campaigned and tried to legislate against both, unless you consider "corporate welfare" from the attitude of the Beatles "Taxman," i.e. "Be thankful I don't take it all."
Thanks.
John
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
when your business plan makes you and your family billionaires, but those who work for you have to get food stamps to sustain themselves. When you purposely only hire people for part time work so that they can't accrue benefits, even though you have hundreds of employees in a store.
unions would help put a stop to those practices, but republicans undermine unions.
Not that I am a lover of unions.. I do see the problems with them. I just see the problems with a system that creates billionaires while keeping the average worker down. Both should be able to rise at the same time.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
then substantiate its racial distribution.
Corporate welfare mechanisms either reduce costs or increase income... the result is more money for the company to increase executive salaries (disproportionately compared to lower paid staff), to invest in growth that increases future earnings, to buy back stock to elevate the stock price, or to pay dividends. So basically, the welfare either increases exec salaries and benefits directly, or increases stock valuation.
Stock valuation disproportionately favors white people:
* http://afcpe.org/assets/pdf/vol_21_issue_2_hanna_wang_yuh.pdf
* http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2011/07/SDT-Wealth-Report_7-26-11_FINAL.pdf
Note this effect is real, without assigning blame or justification for the differences in the disparity in stock ownership, e.g. differences in disposable income, ethnic differences in risk tolerance or trust of the asset class, etc.
The other way that corporate welfare disproportionately benefits white people is in executive salaries. Highest eschelons of most companies are still dominated by white men.
So the points seem pretty substantiated.
What is the Republican response? Or the Hillary response? (almost the same on this particular issue)
|
|
MisterE
Gym climber
Small Town with a Big Back Yard
|
|
Between Nut and Wade, I really have nothing to add - carry on...
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
I note that Republicans have generally campaigned and tried to legislate against both...
Seriously? C'mon, you can't really type that with a straight face. Add up all the corporate tax breaks, giveaways, subsidies and other forms of federal largess and you're into numbers that dwarf the whole of federal welfare to individuals by orders of magnitude. To claim otherwise is either willful ignorance or disingenuous spray. Add in preferential tax treatment for the wealthy and the comparison is off the chart. This is just the sort of nonsense the gop uses to reliably f*#k it's base with and the very reason Trump is where he is - i.e. the gop has relied on hate, fear, lies and manufactured [social] outrage for so long they lost control of a monster of their own making.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
John posted I note that Republicans have generally campaigned and tried to legislate against both
Ahahahahahahahahahuagluaghuagluaghasudoisandkmdlkmasdlk
Larry posted So the next time I lament the lack of personal responsibility in the welfare state "progressives" won't call me a racist? Ha.
If bigots hadn't so consistently used it as a racial dogwhistle for 40+ years then maybe.
madbolter posted Please sustain that claim.
Don't appeal to SS and Medicare, as we all PAID for those and will get a smaller "return" than we paid in (and that in inflated dollars).
Don't appeal to the fact that there are just more white citizens as a proportion of the population, because your statement implies that "the greatest takers" are white citizens. So you need to sustain that whites get an undue proportion of the give-aways.
Please sustain.
Haha look at how huge of a boner you have to sustain this myth. Sustain! SUSTAIN THAT RACE BONER!!!
http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/Characteristics2014.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/28/food-stamp-demographics_n_6771938.html
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,156084,00.html
But we're forgetting something. Welfare is a program for poor people, very poor people. African Americans are three times as likely as whites to fall below the poverty level and hence to have a chance of qualifying for welfare benefits. If we look at the kind of persons most likely to be eligible -- single mothers living in poverty with children under 18 to support -- we find little difference in welfare participation by race: 74.6% of African Americans in such dire straits are on welfare, compared with 64.5% of the poor white single moms.
That's still a difference, but not enough to imply some congenital appetite for a free lunch on the part of the African-derived. In fact, two explanations readily suggest themselves: First, just as blacks are disproportionately likely to be poor, they are disproportionately likely to find themselves among the poorest of the poor, where welfare eligibility arises. Second, the black poor are more likely than their white counterparts to live in cities, and hence to have a chance of making their way to the welfare office. Correct for those two differences, and you won't find an excess of African Americans fitting the stereotype of the sluttish welfare queen who breeds for profit.
So, sure. Let's pretend that the fact blacks have a lower life expectancy than whites and thus don't collect their social security/medicare benefits doesn't count. Let's pretend that illegal immigrants who pay taxes/medicare/social security will never get access to the vast majority of benefits those taxes pay for. Let's carve out however many exceptions you need to keep your myth going, madbolter.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
I asked about welfare, and I get responses about "corporate welfare," which is a separate topic that I'll address later. On the subject of what 99% of people think of as "welfare," your own chart shows that blacks get the lion's share of it, not whites.
Oh, but you have "the answer," it seems....
So, sure. Let's pretend that the fact blacks have a lower life expectancy than whites and thus don't collect their social security/medicare benefits doesn't count.
That's not welfare by any stretch. And I'm not going to fall into the morass of debating WHY they have a lower life-expectancy. With SS and medicare, we're ALL forced to pay in and then take our chances. This point is irrelevant to my question about welfare.
Let's pretend that illegal immigrants who pay taxes/medicare/social security will never get access to the vast majority of benefits those taxes pay for.
Wah, wah, wah. Sorry, but I have ZERO sympathy for people here illegally. This "argument" is a non-starter on every level.
Oh, and it has nothing to do with welfare.
Let's carve out however many exceptions you need to keep your myth going, madbolter.
You're the one, it seems in this post, that is making up irrelevant "arguments" to sustain your myth... the myth of white privilege (that's decades out of date).
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
madbolter posted You're the one, it seems in this post, that is making up irrelevant "arguments" to sustain your myth... the myth of white privilege (that's decades out of date).
Indeed, the concept of white privilege is out of date. People think that it only existed in the form of cartoonish racism and Jim Crowe when in fact it persists in the insistence of people like yourself that blacks are the biggest welfare recipients (which you desperately ignore substantive proof of) and things like what Escopeta referenced in another thread when he responded to a gun control advocate with "I'm white so I can easily break those laws and not get caught."
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
Yes, "whites" do receive the most "welfare", pure race by race
but what does this mean?
does it mean that white people are too lazy to get off their ass and get a job?
does it mean that white "culture" discourages working, employment?
is this a recent thing with white people or have they always been TAKERS?
and what if the answer to all this is yes, yes, yes - it's all true about white people
does that mean the US should round them up and deport them back to Europe?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Long silence by MB = incoming wall of post.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
wall of post.
he has to be working with a Text Generator of some sort
seems sad, like a total waste of bandwidth, just another gaseous planet in the universe
on account of what we all know is coming with every post, skip the whole thing as I do or prolly read two sentences and know the rest
but carpet bombing an internet forum with a wall of post must make Madbolter feel good about himself somehow.....
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
I take your approach Norton: skim or skip entirely. It's a message board, not a place to post a thesis. But, I guess doing so makes him happy.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Don't let facts get in the way of your religion. The Republicans passed the "Freedom to Farm Act," largely ending farm subsidies and price supports. The Democrats succeeded in gutting it.
Most of the alleged tax breaks for corporations come from four facts (apparent if you read the GAO reports you cite): (1) corporations are not taxed on income earned outside the United States unless they return that income to the United States; (2) corporate tax returns include everything from professional corporations, which pay almost all income out in salaries, and have little reportable income subject to double taxation; (3) subsidies for specific activities, such as "green industry," etc. Please answer me which party supports those subsidies; and (4) subsidies and the like given by local government to induce industries to locate there. Example: The California tax break for the movie industry. Again, which party supports theses, if you know?
And Nut Again, you have not demonstrated how corporate profits are distributed by race. You have assumed how those profits get distributed, but I question even some of your assumptions. For example, any bailout of GM and Chrysler bailed out its unions, not its shareholders. Even its secured lenders took a bigger haircut. I find it particularly amusing that Obama supporters, for example, ignore the tax breaks the corporations supporting him receive.
Carry on.
John
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
does it mean that white people are too lazy to get off their ass and get a job?
does it mean that white "culture" discourages working, employment?
I think their pants are too tight to allow for proper work. I mean, what are they thinking?
John posted Dont' let facts get in the way of your religion. The Republicans passed the "Freedom to Farm Act," largely ending farm subsidies and price supports. The Democrats succeeded in gutting it.
The Freedom to Farm act sent more subsidies than ever.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|